The wef great reset

You know why

@@johnkitching2248 still not sure which side you are on. Which is it?

@@stequality Why do you assume he is on one side or the other? People who hitch their political mast to one end of a political spectrum or t’other always confuse me. When I consider my views on stuff I find I’m right-wing in some, left-wing in others and centrist in yet others and none of the above in the rest. People are complicated.

@@stequality On the side of nonces.

@@purplehaze8557 You could be done for libel, m8. I’d watch my step if I were you.

😅😅😅

I mean they are childrens books though; that would be the argument. That is why Enid Blyton got heavily edited - gollies swapped for goblins et cetera. The target audience is one that is known to be impressionable and we all agree needs to be protected to a certain extent but it is not agreed how much or what from. I remember Grimm Fairy Tales coming under a lot of flack in the 80s for being too violent or too frightening; for example the wolf would lock the grandmother in the cupboard rather than swallowing her whole.

@@markpostgate2551 I absolutely agree with your point. I had made the above comment without looking at the sort of ammendments that are actually proposed, although I am under the assumption that these books had been suitably edited so far till the woke brigade in recent years emerged and tries to abolish certain words/narratives out of political correctness, e.g, trying to abolish the word for male and female, instead using non binary words, which makes no sense whatsoever as biological functions of species on earth are factual unless its unicellular reproducing bacteria or virus

@@srodgars1560 But actually the gender neutrality in calling oompa loompas people instead of men is not the political correctness of the new gender identitarians, but of the old feminists. Same as how "where no man has gone before" supposedly had to change to "where no one has gone before" and hang the poetry! (Admittedly they were not so disrespectful as to go back and edit the original series). I'm not defending what is going on, but explaining the rationale and pointing out it's not that new. Changing the description of Mrs Trunchbull from "a formidable female" to "a formidable woman" is interesting. The first has alliteration whereas the latter is already a very common expression with a long history, so why is that considered a modernization? In fact it seems almost prophetic of Dahl to foresee that to establish a character as female the word "woman" would one day not suffice!

@@markpostgate2551 very well explained. My background isn't literature as you might have deduced.

He's still "enormous". Which is not an offensive word, apparently, so if you do meet anyone who is carrying a spare tyre, figuratively not literally (because there could be someone at Kwik Fit who is literally carrying a spare tyre but is actually quite svelte) remember don't say "fat" say "enormous"!.~ or if asked "Does this dress make me look fat?" remind your partner the word is enormous, so as not to cause offense.